Conservative leaders' rhetoric does not match reality

By Marjaleena Repo

In the aftermath of the Conservative Party's first
convention, its leaders are making statements that
cannot go unchallenged.

Stephen Harper announces boldly that his party is a
"very inclusive, open party," that there is room in his
party for differing views, and that the party has
demonstrated "a high degree of tolerance of
differences."

What does one then make of the fact that David
Orchard, a major figure in the Progressive Conservative
Party since '98 and twice a leadership candidate, the
very man who made Peter MacKay the leader in the 2003
convention, was not allowed to attend the convention
even as an observer? Orchard renewed his membership in
early February (all PC Party members had had their
memberships extended to the end of 2004) when
registering as a member-observer. His registration was
accepted and confirmed, but was arbitrarily cancelled
only two days before the convention, when Orchard had
already made all his traveling and hotel arrangements.

The excuses given were many and varied, until he was
finally told that a special meeting of the party's
Interim Joint Council had rejected his membership for
good. No other observer status was available to him, and
thus an individual who for six years had played a
leading role in the rebuilding of the PC Party and had a
great interest in the outcome of the convention could
not be present to witness the party's first constitution
and policies, while representatives from the Liberal,
New Democratic and Bloq Quebecois parties, and various
other organizations, were able to circulate freely.

If anything, this shows "a high degree of
intolerance" and a petty mentality, and is hardly an
indication of the boasted inclusiveness and openness.

On his part, deputy leader Peter MacKay continues to
falsify history. He claims, with a straight face, that
his infamous breech of the signed agreement with David
Orchard in the 2003 PC Party’s leadership convention, to
abide by the PC Party's constitution and not to merge
with the Canadian Alliance, was "democratic, involved,
transparent and open," because he had consulted widely
and thoroughly with party members before he signed an
agreement with Stephen Harper to do the exact opposite,
to merge the parties.

In reality, Peter MacKay consulted no decision-making
body of the PC party before he betrayed his agreement
with David Orchard.

At no time did he discuss the reneging of his
agreement with Orchard with the party's management
committee, of which I was a member (I was also present
when Orchard and MacKay negotiated and signed their
agreement), and did not advise members of the committee
on the Harper-Mackay negotiations OR agreement until
after it was signed. This took his parliamentary caucus,
including the previous party leader, Joe Clark, by
complete surprise as well.

Likewise, the National Council of riding presidents
met by teleconference after the signing of the Agreement
of Principle, and even then no debate was allowed on the
motion to merge the parties and no amendments were
permitted, to many a president's outrage.

The so-called referendum of December 6, '03, was
fraudulent by its very nature, because members of the
Canadian Alliance, with a 3-4 times larger membership
than the PC Party, were officially encouraged to take a
second membership in the PC Party, and therefore were
able to vote twice in favour of the merger. In my own
riding in Blackstrap, Saskatchewan, a brand new group of
Alliance supporters arrived to the delegate selection
meeting and with 52% of the vote took all the positions.
The party did not have proportional representation on
the issue, which would have guaranteed fairness, and
therefore slightly over 50% of those who attended the
delegate selection meetings took nearly all the
positions, thereby delivering the thoroughly misleading
"over 90% approval" of the Agreement in Principle.

Over the years the PC Party had taken concrete steps
to prevent the feared takeover of the party by the
Reform/Canadian Alliance, the latter looking to change
its spots so as to be more palatable to the Canadian
electorate. In its 1999 convention party members voted
for a constitutional amendment to prevent the takeover,
and upheld it in 2002, as well as having the riding
presidents reject another attempt in 2001 to promote "a
Conservative Alternative," a code word for merger.

All in all, a huge majority of PC Party members, from
one delegate convention to another, opposed the very
idea of the merger, and as late as in the 2003
leadership convention, gave the openly pro-merger
candidate a mere 1% of the votes. At no time did Peter
MacKay ask for or receive a mandate to proceed with
merger negotiations, let alone to sign a deal with
Stephen Harper, which resulted in the death of the
historically significant Progressive Conservative Party
of Canada. The mandate he had was to uphold his party's
constitution, and this is what he confirmed in his deal
with David Orchard. To claim otherwise today is to earn
him not one, but two monikers, that of a Judas and a
Pinochio, the latter which he is free to share with his
unprincipled partner, Stephen Harper.

Marjaleena Repo is a writer and researcher
on social, political and justice issues, with a special
interest in the media and in civil liberties. She lives
in Saskatoon and can be reached atmrepo@sasktel.net.